Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:19:14 PMGuns are made solely for killing.I disagree. Consider this, I shoot at a target at the range. Would you consider this a misuse of the firearm? I certainly don't.

Now, if you do not consider this a misuse of the firearm, then we can conclude that it is being used purposefully. Therefore, one must reach the ultimate conclusion that the purpose of a firearm is not to kill.

What then is the purpose? In all of the cases of use in which I consider a firearm to be used properly, I find that the purpose is to propel a bullet or other projectile over some distance.

Of course, this all hinges on your acceptance or denial that firing a gun at a shooting range is a proper way to use it.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:26:50 AM@McGovern1981- My point is that this isn't an argument used in any form of intelligent debate on this issue. We both know that. For you to posture this claim as an argument held by intelligent supporters of reform only to attack it is dishonest.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:25:58 AMRead the comments saying "Guns are made soley for killing" it's said in everyone of these threads. Couldn't be more wrong.

Guns are made solely for killing. That's what they're designed for. That is the purpose of a gun.

Many people use them for shooting targets, but that's just human ability to use things for purposes other than the purpose they were made for. It doesn't change the purpose they were made for.

And don't argue defence. That's just silly in this context. The whole point of using a gun in defence is that it's made solely for killing - you are using it to force someone to obey you by threatening to kill them or by killing them. Which is why you're using something made solely for killing.

Sure, you can also use a gun as a paperweight, a hammer, a means of opening a locked door...all sorts of things, but it doesn't change what a gun is made for - killing.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:08:57 AMcontinued- If there are far more studies that support your position, why did you choose a tabloid article?

@McGovern1981- "Millions of guns are used everyday for sport and recreation in the US but the anti gunheads still cling to the argument they're just for killing. Our forefathers would be ashamed of you!" This is such a bs strawman argument. There is nobody suggesting that guns are not used for sports. Show me one person claiming that gun sports do not exist.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:49:37 AM@crakrjak- oh, I see. You have provided a chart of stats from a notoriously dishonest tabloid as a rebuttal to many credible surveys. Is this the best you can do? In the very article showcasing South Africa being the 3rd most violent to the U.K. at number 1 it continues "South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007." All of these "stats" have been obtained using different parameters chosen by the various institutions they are gathered from. I almost feel embarrassed for you for citing this "information" as relevant, and apparently you have done it twice! lol! "All BS studies with several flaws, there are far more studies and statistics that confirm that guns save many more lives than they take and prevent a lot of crimes like rape and robbery." What are the flaws, specifically? Where is this abundant statistical data supporting your claim? If there are "far more" studies that support you

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:38:13 AM@skullgrin That just makes America sound like a crap place to in. If you need a gun to save yourself from the government then that place isn't worth living in. Also, WHO on this planet is going to try and over throw America? Like seriously dude, Korea are going to invade North America at some point?

@MeGrendel I never said guns are available here, but there's a difference between living in a country that doesn't allow guns to be used and guns being widely available. Even though I said the U.K has around 8 deaths a year due to guns, that's not a good thing.

@CrakrJak 1) Care to explain how you know the motives of those criminals and KNEW that they would commit crimes because the victim didn't have a gun 2) Explain how, guns are supposed to scare off criminals yet you still have some of the highest shootings in the world? 3) When you cite the DailyMail as a NEWSWORTHY SOURCE, you've already lost your credibility.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:20:50 AMâ€¢"Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna' have a gun. Safety locks? You pull a trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Former mobster Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, who testified against John Gotti (his former boss), admitted to killing nineteen people, and is now living under the Witness Protection Program.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:13:58 AMMillions of guns are used everyday for sport and recreation in the US but the anti gunheads still cling to the argument they're just for killing. Our forefathers would be ashamed of you!

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:04:28 AMAs you can see everyone wanting more control has never owned a single gun. For your information an AR-15 is one of the best target shiiting rifles you can get because yes the military likes their guns to be accurate. I mean, do you seriously expect to win against the US military with some crappy second hand assault rifles?Ya that look real secondhand and crappy. The leftist solution ban an object that wasn't legal for the shooter to have in the first place. It's the objects fault lets not try to see what makes a person do such a thing.

â€œThis year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!â€ - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:54:33 AMI'm astounded by the belief that the US government is going to turn on it's citizens. I'm hearing it again and again in these gun debate threads. Really? how likely is this, even if the amount of firearms were reduced or limited to less combat effective weaponry. I've never heard anything approaching that scenario being suggested in this country, and we're the weirdos who gave up our guns. I have a healthy distrust of anything a politician says, sure. and some of the wars that have been started overseas might be considered criminal, but is the same armed forces who enlisted to fight FOR their country going to be compelled to attack their own citizens? I seriously doubt it. It's also pretty unlikely that any foreign army would try to invade the US theyed just fire nukes., the biggest threat to American citizens are themselves.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:15:31 AMIn australia all ranged weapons need a permit to own, need to be carried dissassembled and in teh case of guns, teh parts neede to be locked seperately in a safe and the police have the right to make regular un-announced checks.

Does this mean less murders? well stats show that teh murder rate didn't drop that much when the gun laws went into effect. However the number of mass killings dropped pretty much to nil, gun related suicides also dropped close to nil